Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32542387›Full record

Observational studyThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2020

Towards personalized guidelines: using machine-learning algorithms to guide antimicrobial selection.

Ed Moran, Esther Robinson, Christopher Green, Matt Keeling, Benjamin Collyer

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Optimal antibiotic use in the intensive care unit.Critical care (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ed MoranSouthmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK.
Esther RobinsonBirmingham Public Health Laboratory, Public Health England, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Bordesley Green East, Birmingham B9 5SS, UK.
Christopher GreenBirmingham Heartlands Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Bordesley Green East, Birmingham B9 5SS, UK.
Matt KeelingZeeman Institute, Mathematics Institute and School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.
Benjamin CollyerZeeman Institute, Mathematics Institute and School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.

Funding

British Heart FoundationChief Scientist OfficeMedical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic decision support systems could reduce the use of inappropriate or ineffective empirical antibiotics. We assessed the accuracy of an open-source machine-learning algorithm trained in predicting antibiotic resistance for three Gram-negative bacterial species isolated from patients' blood and urine within 48 h of hospital admission.

methodsThis retrospective, observational study used routine clinical information collected between January 2010 and October 2016 in Birmingham, UK. Patients from whose blood or urine cultures Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae or Pseudomonas aeruginosa was isolated were identified. Their demographic, microbiology and prescribing data were used to train an open-source machine-learning algorithm-XGBoost-in predicting resistance to co-amoxiclav and piperacillin/tazobactam. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of resistance and create a point-scoring tool. The performance of both methods was compared with that of the original prescribers.

resultsThere were 15 695 admissions. The AUC of the receiver operating characteristic curve for the point-scoring tools ranged from 0.61 to 0.67, and performed no better than medical staff in the selection of appropriate antibiotics. The machine-learning system performed statistically but marginally better (AUC 0.70) and could have reduced the use of unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics by as much as 40% among those given co-amoxiclav, piperacillin/tazobactam or carbapenems. A validation study is required.

conclusionsMachine-learning algorithms have the potential to help clinicians predict antimicrobial resistance in patients found to have a Gram-negative infection of blood or urine. Prospective studies are required to assess performance in an unselected patient cohort, understand the acceptability of such systems to clinicians and patients, and assess the impact on patient outcome.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective AgentsAlgorithmsHumansMachine LearningProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective Agents

Identifiers

PMID32542387
PMCPMC7443728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.